Posted on 04/05/2006 8:39:22 AM PDT by luthers_inkwell
At http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-mueller-blog/ballmer-linux/ we're reminded that Microsoft wants Linux dead. Ballmer is once again making noise about patents.
Unfortunately, Microsoft likely does have patents it could use against Linux. IBM can probably be replied upon to fight back on the side of Linux with its own patents - supposedly they've called Microsoft patent bluffs in the past just by pointing out that they also have stacks of patents and idle lawyers ready to look for violations by Windows code. However, Microsoft might now be willing to risk the battle.
Microsoft is not in a happy place right now. Vista is delayed, and both Apple and Linux are gnawing at its toes. The increasing interest in virtualization and particularly in package/OS bundling like VMware Player is a bumpy road for Microsoft because of OS licensing. Microsoft doesn't want its OS sales pirated, but it doesn't want to miss out on that market either. Linux apps can be shipped with a free OS; Microsoft apps cannot.
(Excerpt) Read more at aplawrence.com ...
Bwa ha hha ha hahahahahah hahahhaha aha!
LOL!!
LOL, ole FLAMING DEATH has been hiding under his toilet after his first few posts to me were exposed earlier today showing him desperately linking Richard Stallman's site and trying to deny the chinese can make free copies of linux software made here in the U.S., all of which was wrong of course. He'll show up with a barrage of lies and all caps posts one day again I'm sure, since anytime he dares try to speak legibly and technically on these subjects he swallows both feet.
Just sit down, relax, and the Nice Men from Room 101 will come for you shortly.
So you do prefer blackmarket duplicators to U.S. businesses? We don't really need any rich U.S. businessmen right? The cheapest stuff from china will always be good enough. Good enough for Stallman, so why not you too right?
You guys just love that don't you. How about "Stallmanites"? Ever heard of "Cybercommunism"? All perfectly interchangable.
On the one hand, there is a valid need to protect genuinely novel inventions.
On the other hand, the USPTO is apparently run by a 2 KB program running on a Commodore 64 BASIC.
I think I'll leave now. I have to file some patents. Things like "A device to transport a person or a thing or a multiplicity of persons or a multiplicity of things or a combined multiplicity of persons and things either forward or backward in time, using a proprietary technology that will be apparent to one skilled in the art." Also, "A device to neutralize or reverse the force of gravity, using a proprietary technology that will be apparent to one skilled in the art."10 REM USPTO Patent Qualification Analsys Application
15 REM *** FOR OFFICIAL USPTO USE ONLY ***
20 Input "Has it been patented yet?", YN$
30 If YN$="Y" then Print "Sorry!" : End
40 If YN$="N" then Print "Please remit fee, your patent will be mailed to you shortly. Have a nice day!" : End
I'd go for perpetual motion too, except that they've already granted patents for that. Seriously.
Things like a new, efficient, fast, NOVEL sort procedure, or encryption system, or compression algorithm... these should be patentable. Things like, "An invention that allows a person to use a combination of a computer, a keyboard, a mouse pointing device, and an Internet connection, to transmit a series of typewritten words to a remote computer, for the purpose of storing the data for retrieval by third parties using proprietary software the use of which shall be apparent to one skilled in the art..." -- should NOT be patentable. But, it IS, and they regularly DO grant patents for crap like that.
Let's ignore the inane patent-granting for outright stupid "inventions", and concentrate on the patenting of OBVIOUS "inventions".
By granting patents on the OBVIOUS, they are throwing sticks into the bicycle spokes of technology. Gee, I'd better watch my words -- some dinkus might race out and patent THAT, too!
When a software developer has to worry about whether or not some piddly exercise is a "patent-protected 'invention'", we are engaging in technological self-destruction on a national level. You write a program. You include obvious, intuitive features. Stuff that ANY programmer would use. yet, some MORON at the USPTO has granted a patent to some other MORON who filed an application to have it patented! "What? You send NUMERIC data after a double-click in a SEPARATE window? You fool! You arrogant THIEF! How DARE you infringe my patent!"
You could probably patent the wheel, the windmill, the door-latch, the muffler, and the game of "Cat's Cradle", so long as you filled out the forms properly.
It's beyond brain-dead. It's beyond stupid. It is an utter farce.
It's almost as if the decision was made to create a system SO abysmal that the overwhelming temptation would be to throw away the baby with the fetid, stinking bathwater, just to be rid of the stench.
All perfectly ludicrous.
Smock! Smock!
I agree, but you're talking from today's standpoint about patents that were filed many years ago. We understand and accept technology better today than we did when the Eolas patent was granted for example, even though I don't claim to know whether or not that particular patent is valid. I don't think many patents are TODAY being granted for "single click" etc, although some probably are, as time continues to further pass the chances of suing and wining on something like that in the future continues to fall.
Sorry, gotta run.
It is absolutely entertainment. I'm having a ball!
are everywhere!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Flamer is still trying to claim Concurrent isn't distributing Red Hawk when the whole thread was a PR release announcing the sale!"
Wow. Amazing how you have a question about the terms of the GPL, I post an answer about the terms of the GPL, then you make the leap that I was saying Concurrent wasn't distributing it.
Let's recap, since you obviously still don't get it:
You asked if Concurrent had to give away their source code.
I told you the condition under which they could keep their source code secret.
Then, you made up the part about me saying Concurrent wasn't distributing it.
Where did I say that? Thread and post number?
Oh, that's right. You don't have one, as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.